California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20694
E.D. Cal.2014Background
- CSPA moved to quash or modify subpoenas to the Butte County DA’s Office and Deputy DA Thomas related to this CWA case.
- Plaintiff and defendants briefed the discovery dispute; in camera review and hearings were held.
- The action asserts federal CWA violations linked to storm water permits at Chico Scrap Metal’s Oroville facility (CSM-NorCal).
- Prior state proceedings and a 2008 plea agreement ended civil/criminal actions, with probation and remedial orders.
- Discovery centers on whether communications between plaintiff, counsel, and district attorney personnel are protected by attorney work product or common-interest waivers.
- The court must decide standing to quash, work-product protection, waiver/common interest, and scope of redactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to quash subpoenas to third parties | CSPA has standing to challenge | Plaintiff lacks standing for third-party subpoenas | Plaintiff has standing for work-product claims; lacking for some third-party emails. |
| Protection of work product in subpoena documents | Documents are protected as work product | Protection does not apply or is waived | Some documents fully protected; others redacted or produced; in camera logs partially protected. |
| Waiver via common-interest doctrine | Common interest with DA prevents waiver | No common interest; waiver applies | Common-interest doctrine applies; disclosure did not waive work-product protection. |
| Scope of redactions and partially protected documents | Redact all privileged content | Redactions should be limited | Specify redactions; certain documents fully protected; others partially redacted. |
| Effect of in-camera determinations on production | In-camera review supports protection | In-camera review should not be final | In-camera review leads to release of non-privileged portions and redactions as ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re California Public Utilities Comm’n, 892 F.2d 778 (9th Cir.1989) (work product attaches to documents prepared for litigation)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Torf/Torf Environmental Management), 357 F.3d 900 (9th Cir.2004) (work product protection; substantial need/undue hardship)
- United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir.2010) (common interest not waiving work product)